MATTER OF JEFFRYES v VANCE [58 Misc 3d 185] 185
[61 NYS3d 851]
In the Matter of ARMINTA JEFFRYES et al., Petitioners, v CYRUS
R. VANCE, JR., et al., Respondents.
ARMINTA JEFFRYES et al., Plaintiffs, v CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., et
al., Defendants.
Supreme Court, New York County, September 20, 2017
HEADNOTE
District and Prosecuting Attorneys — Authority to Prose-
cute — Delegation of Authority to Prosecute Violations to Police
Department Attorneys
Respondents were not entitled to dismissal of petitioners’ action alleging
that respondent District Attorney (DA) unlawfully delegated his authority to
prosecute certain violations to attorneys representing the interests of respon-
dent police department (PD). A district attorney may delegate the prosecu-
tion of petty crimes or offenses to other public officers, as long as he or she
remains aware of all delegated prosecutions. Because respondent PD issued
the summonses through which violations were charged, it determined which
violations it would prosecute and which ones would not be prosecuted,
without respondent DA’s input. The potential conflict raised a claim that re-
spondent PD prosecutors were not exercising pretrial prosecutorial discretion
in an evenhanded manner, based on the merits of the case or other legiti-
mate prosecutorial concerns. Moreover, just as respondent DA was not
permitted to delegate the prosecution of offenses to attorneys who represent
the victims of those offenses, his delegee prosecutors also could not represent
the complainants of offenses, the police officers. When a conflict of interest
potentially impairs the prosecutor’s obligation to do justice, even when re-
spondent DA is authorized to delegate the prosecution to respondent PD,
that authority must yield to avoid the conflict.
RESEARCH REFERENCES